419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

This looks most promising. Kepler’s third law used with the Wikipedia data for S2 shows that the orbit of S2 is completely non Newtonian, as shown yesterday using a hand calculator (Note 419(3)). EGR is only a small correction to Newton, and the astronomers do not know the precession experimentally. So your computation will be world leading because everyone in the world of astronomy and cosmology is studying S2 now. It went through closest approach on 18th May 2018. First of all we should make sure that my calculation using the third law of Kepler is correct. It is very simple so there is nothing to go wrong, but we may as well check, and no one can challenge the fact that the standard model has crashed spectacularly into the trees on its downhill run. It is certainly going downhill. If so we have discovered another wild inconsistency in the standard model. This adds to our collection of refutations.

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

In UFT 375 I varied initial velocity v_0 to obtain the right orbit period. Now let’s assume that the experimental values (21,22) are precise enough. Then I see two methods of finding the right orbit:
1) vary the central mass M
2) vary the function m(r) as described in the note.

I will try this tomorrow.


Am 14.11.2018 um 10:10 schrieb Myron Evans:

419(3): Suggested Self Consistent Procedure

The diametric self inconsistency in the standard model analysis of the S2 star is explained in this note, in that they used a Newtonian method for estimating M and claimed that this verifies black hole theory. In other words they assumed a static ellipse and claims that this verifies EGR, which gives a precessing ellipse. This is total nonsense. So I suggest integrating the m theory equations (17) and (18) with the suggestions (1) to (3) on page three. This should show whether the S2 orbit is Newtonian, or precessing.

%d bloggers like this: